Posted on 02/21/2010 8:07:35 AM PST by CaroleL
Which only deals with budget issues.
Any changes in the Senate Bill would have to revoted on by the Senate.
Tennessee has joined several other states in trying to pass a Health Care Freedom Act. NO COLAs for granny, retired Military or retired fed employees. BIG NEW fees for Tricare for Life retired over 65 Military's secondary health ins. (DOD bill already passed, delayed but goes into effect 2011)
New Dem mantra: Woof, woof eat dog food granny....ala let them eat cake.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Obama says slight fix will extend Social Security
http://townhall.com/news/us/2010/02/19/obama_says_slight_fix_will_extend_social_security
TRI CARE FOR LIFE This from a google search:
http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/05/tricare-for-life-is-obama-trying-to.html
This option would help reduce the costs of TFL, as well as costs for Medicare, by introducing minimum out-of pocket requirements for beneficiaries. Under this option, TFL would not cover any of the first $525 of an enrollee’s cost-sharing liabilities for calendar year 2011 and would limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,725 in Medicare cost sharing that the beneficiary incurred. (Because all further cost sharing would be covered by TFL, enrollees could not pay more than $2,888 in cost sharing in that year.)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9925/12-18-HealthOptions.pdf
http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/hcva09/hcva110609-1.htm
Bill Would Restrict Veterans’ Health Care Options 11/06/09
Buyer and McKeon Offer Amendments to Protect Veterans and TRICARE Beneficiaries
Congress plans to block Tricare fee increases
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w
By Rick Maze - Staff writer, Oct 7, 2009
Tricare fee increases imposed last week by the Defense Department will be repealed by a provision of the compromise 2010 defense authorization bill unveiled Wednesday by House and Senate negotiators.
Snip
The fee increases were announced on Sept. 30 and took effect on Oct. 1, but the defense bill, HR 2647, includes a provision barring any fee increases until the start of fiscal 2011.
Snip
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Bill Matz, president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, said the announcement of fee increases was shocking considering that the Obama administration promised earlier this year to hold off on any new fee Tricare fee increases until fiscal 2011.
“President Obama and DoD assured NAUS and the entire military family earlier this year that there would rightly be no increases in any Tricare fees” in fiscal 2010, Matz said. “We took them at their word, and I can’t believe that a co-pay increase like this was allowed to go forward,” he added.
Bambi doesn't keep his promises...so buyer beware.
Byrd, Byrd, Byrd ... Byrd is the Word.
::: Bomp, bomp, bomp :::
Theoretically, yes. But, this is where the Parliamentarian becomes the linchpin. That's an awful lot of power (and pressure) for a guy in either passing or rejecting the most sweeping social entitlement program since the '64 Social Security expansion.
"Any changes in the Senate Bill would have to revoted on by the Senate."
In one possible scenario, the House wouldn't make any changes to the Senate bill. The House would adopt the Senate bill, in its entirety. But first, both the House and the Senate would vote to pass a Reconciliation Bill, if allowed by the Parliamentarian. If such a Bill were allowed, the both the House and the Senate would vote on the Reconciliation Bill. It would, in theory, not be subject to a filibuster in the Senate, thus only requiring 50 votes (plus Biden's tie breaker). After the Reconciliation Bill is passed, the House would then vote to adopt the Senate Bill as originally written. There's no law that says one has to be passed before the other, just that it Reconciliation Bill can't be signed by Obama first. It's a dirty trick of dirty tricks.
Obama would end up singing two separate bills. First, the Senate's initially proposed and passed health care bill, then he'd sign the Reconciliation Bill, that - again in theory - would bring back the public option and dozens of other provision that the Senate couldn't get with their initial bill because of the filibuster threats of Nelson and Lieberman.
Essentially, they would take a bad bill (the Senate bill) and make it exponentially worse, to say nothing of incredibly more expensive. At least the Senate bill has the "Cadillac Tax" which offsets the costs of the program. While a bad idea, it's better than paying for it by borrowing from the Chinese. Any Budget Reconciliation bill passed by the leftists in the House, would surely stripe the Cadillac tax provision from the final program.
Be careful ... they will find out how old we are. :=)
SUMMARY OF THE BYRD RULE
Under the Byrd rule, the Senate is prohibited from considering extraneous matter as part of a reconciliation bill or resolution or conference report thereon. The definition of what constitutes "extraneous matter" is set forth in the Budget Act; however, the term remains subject to considerable interpretation by the presiding officer (who relies on the Senate Parliamentarian). The Byrd rule is enforced when a Senator raises a point of order during consideration of a reconciliation bill or conference report. If the point of order is sustained, the offending title, provision or amendment is deemed stricken unless its proponent can muster a 3/5 (60) Senate majority vote to waive the rule.
Subject matter - The Byrd rule may be invoked only against reconciliation bills, amendments thereto, and reconciliation conference reports.
Byrd rule tests - Section 313(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act sets forth six tests for matters to be considered extraneous under the Byrd rule. The criteria apply to provisions that:
- do not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
- produce changes in outlays or revenue which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
- are outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
- increase outlays or decrease revenue if the provision's title, as a whole, fails to achieve the Senate reporting committee's reconciliation instructions;
- increase net outlays or decrease revenue during a fiscal year after the years covered by the reconciliation bill unless the provision's title, as a whole, remains budget neutral;
- contain recommendations regarding the OASDI (social security) trust funds.
Exceptions to the Byrd Rule - Section 313(b)(2) allows certain otherwise covered Senate-originated provisions to be excepted from the Byrd rule if the provisions are certified for exemption by the Senate Budget Committee chairman and ranking minority member, as well as the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee of jurisdiction. The permitted exceptions are:
- a provision that mitigates direct effects attributable to a second provision which changes outlays or revenue when the provisions together produce a net reduction in outlays;
- the provision will result in a substantial reduction in outlays or a substantial increase in revenues during fiscal years after the fiscal years covered by the reconciliation bill;
- the provision will likely reduce outlays or increase revenues based on actions that are not currently projected by CBO for scorekeeping purposes; or
- such provision will likely produce significant reduction in outlays or increase in revenues, but due to insufficient data such reduction or increase cannot be reliably estimated.
Effect of points of order - The effect of raising a point of order under the Byrd rule is to strike the offending extraneous provision. If a point of order against a conference report is sustained, the Senate may consider subsequent motions to dispose of that portion of the conference report not subject to the point of order.
Waivers - The Byrd rule is not self-enforcing. A point of order must be raised at the appropriate time to enforce it. The Byrd rule can only be waived by a 3/5 (60) majority vote of the Senate.
If they could do this, they wouldn't need a reconcilation bill!
They can't pass the Senate Bill without the Reconciliation Bill, that the point.
Once again, this is how it would work - the Congress - both Houses - would theoretically pass the Budget Reconciliation bill first, then the House would pass the original Senate bill. This is perfectly fine so long as Obama signs the original Senate bill first, then the Budget Reconciliation bill. It's a legislative sleight of hand.
No, they can pass the Senate Bill with a simple vote in Congress, they just don't have votes to do so.
Once again, this is how it would work - the Congress - both Houses - would theoretically pass the Budget Reconciliation bill first, then the House would pass the original Senate bill. This is perfectly fine so long as Obama signs the original Senate bill first, then the Budget Reconciliation bill. It's a legislative sleight of hand.
What Pelosi thinks is that the additional money in reconciliation bill will buy enough votes to pass the original Senate Bill.
So, even with the Reconciliation Bill passed, the Senate Bill still might not pass the House, since the Health Care Bill is toxic, especially without the anti-abortion amendment that the House Bill had in it.
You're not getting it. Once the Reconciliation Bill passes - the bill that would be the enforceable law - the passing of the Senate bill in the House becomes just a formality as most of it wouldn't become law, it's just a parliamentary necessity to actually have something for the Reconciliation Bill to modify.
The Reconciliation Bill isn't necessary to please the House moderates, but the House liberals. It would modify the card-check provision, and perhaps even reinsert the public option amongst some other things; These are the things that couldn't be inserted/amended in the original Senate bill because of the threat of a filibuster. But, because the budget reconciliation process doesn't allow a filibuster, the Senate Dems will only need to get 50 votes (plus Biden's one) to pass the Budget Reconciliation bill.
The reconciliation Bill would only deal with budget issues, not the 'meat' of the Health Care Bill.
If the Senate version isn't passed, the Health Care isn't passed-period.
And that is the problem, the House can't pass the Senate version.
The Reconciliation Bill isn't necessary to please the House moderates, but the House liberals. It would modify the card-check provision, and perhaps even reinsert the public option amongst some other things; These are the things that couldn't be inserted/amended in the original Senate bill because of the threat of a filibuster. But, because the budget reconciliation process doesn't allow a filibuster, the Senate Dems will only need to get 50 votes (plus Biden's one) to pass the Budget Reconciliation bill.
So, the Reconciliation Bill is just some more issues to please the Liberal wing of the House in order to get the actual Senate version passed.
But the fact is, what is holding up the Senate version is the lack of the anti-abortion language in the Bill.
The Reconciliation bill doesn't solve the Democrat's problem, it is only an attempt to get some more votes in the House so that the Senate version can pass, which is the comprehensive Bill.
So passing the Senate version is not just a 'formality' it is still crucial to have get the comprehensive health care that Obama wants.
The Reconciliation Bill won't do that by itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.